Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

It is interesting that our coaches do not care about the ratings, however, it does seem like the teams who consistently sign the highest rated players have the most success. So their must be some relationship between having a lot of highly rated players on your team and winning championships?

Yes. No one's disputing that. However you need to still be able to find those players who fit your system. Even Bama, bad example I know, has some 3 star players lying around. They're not 5 stars top to bottom like everyone would have you believe. Where do you think Champ learned how to properly evaluate and recruit talent? Saban was a huge influence on him during his time at LSU.

We have had some 4* not pan out and some 2* playing in the NFL. No doubt life is easier when you can sign nothing but the very best like Bama or the taters. We can certainly build a strong team with under-rated players. At this point we have no choice.

I want my coach to see a recruit up close and personal, work him out and evaluate based on his star system. Someone on film means nothing. Who are they playing against? If our coach is a great evaluator, we will win big!

We have had some 4* not pan out and some 2* playing in the NFL. No doubt life is easier when you can sign nothing but the very best like Bama or the taters. We can certainly build a strong team with under-rated players. At this point we have no choice.

I want my coach to see a recruit up close and personal, work him out and evaluate based on his star system. Someone on film means nothing. Who are they playing against? If our coach is a great evaluator, we will win big!

And this is why Muschamp is such a good evaluator because this is exactly what he does.

Coaches don't recruit based on star ratings - if they did, they would be late to the game. Way late.

Look how many coaching staff personnel are out there and then look at the number of analysts employed by the recruiting sites. Then consider the ability to evaluate players that both groups have.

Recruiting services are parasites that feed off the work by college coaches. If a kid starts to get offers, the ratings services will start to look at the player. If he gets big name offers, he gets bumped accordingly.

So yeah, recruiting rankings matter, but mostly because they reflect what the coaches see and who they are already looking at. So Boom is correct, he is recruiting who he likes and not paying attention to stars.

The way our OL has been in recent years they all might as well all be walk ons the first year.

Like Death and Taxes, the obligatory shot at the O Line. You are nothing if not consistent.

We could have had the Dallas O Line last year and our Offense would have sucked and our fans would have complained. The offensive skill positions had virtually no talent or experience at the beginning of last year.

Amazing how the Offense got better with Dowdle, Deebo and Bentley in the line-up and getting experience - maybe the O Line was not the reason that the Offense was so bad at the start of the year?

Like Death and Taxes, the obligatory shot at the O Line. You are nothing if not consistent.

We could have had the Dallas O Line last year and our Offense would have sucked and our fans would have complained. The offensive skill positions had virtually no talent or experience at the beginning of last year.

Amazing how the Offense got better with Dowdle, Deebo and Bentley in the line-up and getting experience - maybe the O Line was not the reason that the Offense was so bad at the start of the year?

Did you watch the offensive line play by play breakdown from the Vandy game? The unit looked lost and did not appear to be well coached. I know it was first game of the season and all, but they were still making some horrible mistakes. Triple teaming one guy and leaving two guys unblocked. Blocking downfield we had guys turning around to watch the ball carrier while the defender they should have blocked ran right past them.

I'm not going to say that the offensive line was our only problem, but I'm also not going to pretend that it's a unit that will magically get fixed by some experience at the skill positions.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with 4 and 5 star guys. They are typically ranked on talent alone. And some of the fail because that isn't enough. However, I think what Muschamp is saying here is that he isn't going to recruit on just talent alone but work ethic.

A guy talented enough to play college football (2 or 3 star guy) with a fantastic work ethic is the type that reaches his full potential, becomes a leader, and makes his team better with his effort and leadership. It's not just talent alone that makes you successful.

So with all the 4 and 5 star guys at Bama and Clemson, you better believe they work hard too and are really successful because they aren't going to settle for being lazy or a poor work ethic.

Never underestimate a kid's heart and effort in becoming better. It's the combination of talent and work ethic that allows a kid to reach his full potential. And these are the guys Muschamp wants to build and lead his team.

Like Death and Taxes, the obligatory shot at the O Line. You are nothing if not consistent.

We could have had the Dallas O Line last year and our Offense would have sucked and our fans would have complained. The offensive skill positions had virtually no talent or experience at the beginning of last year.

Amazing how the Offense got better with Dowdle, Deebo and Bentley in the line-up and getting experience - maybe the O Line was not the reason that the Offense was so bad at the start of the year?

You can only use 25% percent of the playbook with an experienced QB and crappy OL too. It might be enough to get the job done most of the time, but is not the ideal situation for success. Top teams at least have a decent OL and are excellent every where else. That is how we have have had more successful years. The few years we were decent on the OL we also were loaded with talent elsewhere.

You can only use 25% percent of the playbook with an experienced QB and crappy OL too. It might be enough to get the job done most of the time, but is not the ideal situation for success. Top teams at least have a decent OL and are excellent every where else. That is how we have have had more successful years. The few years we were decent on the OL we also were loaded with talent elsewhere.

WIth an experienced QB, teams game plan around a defense and therefore, all plays are on the table to begin with.

WIth an experienced QB, teams game plan around a defense and therefore, all plays are on the table to begin with.

And so you have a so/so offense because you are letting the defense dictate what you do, trying to play checkers instead of football with the play calling. You need to have an offensive line so you can impose your will on the defense. There is a reason why those guys are supposed to be on the field. They aren't supposed just be there for a distraction while the skill players do all the work. They are supposed to slow down the defense and stop penetration so plays can develop and open up holes in the run run game.

Did you watch the offensive line play by play breakdown from the Vandy game? The unit looked lost and did not appear to be well coached. I know it was first game of the season and all, but they were still making some horrible mistakes. Triple teaming one guy and leaving two guys unblocked. Blocking downfield we had guys turning around to watch the ball carrier while the defender they should have blocked ran right past them.

I'm not going to say that the offensive line was our only problem, but I'm also not going to pretend that it's a unit that will magically get fixed by some experience at the skill positions.

A few things:

1. It was the first game, as you noted, and on the road.
2. Vandy has a pretty good D.
3. Donnell Stanley was hurt on the first play, causing us to shift Park to Guard and putting Camper in the starting line-up. With a new starter and a guy playing a different position, you expect some confusion and a lack of cohesion.
4. The skill guys were still an issue. We did not know who was starting at QB until game time. Orth and BMac both played, and they had little to work with - first time starter in AJ Turner, Deebo pulled his hammy early, Brian Edwards was playing his first game, Hurst getting his first start at TE, etc. No chemistry, virtually no experience, and very little healthy talent at the skill positions - and we still managed over 300 yards.

You can only use 25% percent of the playbook with an experienced QB and crappy OL too. It might be enough to get the job done most of the time, but is not the ideal situation for success. Top teams at least have a decent OL and are excellent every where else. That is how we have have had more successful years. The few years we were decent on the OL we also were loaded with talent elsewhere.

We have a "decent" OL already and they have a chance to be better than decent this year. The skill guys held us back last year but it now appears that we have the talent and depth, they just need to get the experience to match the O Line. Then we will have your formula for a top team.

It is funny how the years where you think the O Line was not "decent" coincided with years where our skill position guys sucked. Like all of 2015 and the first half of 2016.

1. It was the first game, as you noted, and on the road.
2. Vandy has a pretty good D.
3. Donnell Stanley was hurt on the first play, causing us to shift Park to Guard and putting Camper in the starting line-up. With a new starter and a guy playing a different position, you expect some confusion and a lack of cohesion.
4. The skill guys were still an issue. We did not who was starting at QB until game time. Orth and BMac both played, and they had little to work with - first time starter in AJ Turner, Deebo pulled his hammy early, Brian Edwards was playing his first game, Hurst getting his first start at TE, etc. No chemistry and very little healthy talent at the skill positions - and we still managed over 300 yards.

And even with all of that we still won the game. Knowing what we know now how many people would have bet we would win that game in Nashville? I would not have bet a nickel.

We can go either direction this fall. We could begin the rise back up to where we were (hopefully to go further) by winning 8 or 9 games. Or, we could stumble and end up just like last year. (The 3rd choice is implode, but I don't think that is very likely)

Forgive the obvious, but the things I will watch for as a harbinger of what is to come will be:

1) improved defensive play - especially along the line of scrimmage, and some semblance of a pass rush. Linebackers (Skai Moore) and safety could be crucial there. Pressure on opposing QBs is almost as good as having 2 lock down cornerbacks.

2) improved offensive execution - in particular blocking up front; Roper should have most of his offense installed by now and we have some skill people who can carry it out. The question is whether the offensive line will be reliable enough so that Roper can call a game the way he would like to.

I don't expect a miracle, but with Bentley at QB, and Samuel, Edwards and Hurst catching the ball, and Turner, Williams and Dowdle running the ball we have the potential to be explosive on offense.